Originally Posted by infantrycak
Sometimes the NFL and pundits get caught up in their own self-created rules. Gil Brandt has an article out saying the Texans shouldn't take Mack at 1.1 because he is a LB. Of course he doesn't apply the same logic to the Texans taking Clowney who would play LB for them as well.
And of course, in Crennel's 2-gap 34, it's the LB's who are the primary pass rushers, not the DE's.
The question which was posed to me earlier as I was developing my defense centric mock is, if Clowney is projected to the Elephant, how do we utilize Mercilus? Do we just jettison our 2012 #26 pick. Granted, he has not performed to expectations, but we have no idea, as of now, how well he would adapt to Crennel's defense. You usually don't abandon this high of a pick after only two seasons without extremely good cause.
So is Clowney projected to DE and if so, he probably won't produce the high sack totals justifying Gil Brandt's analysis. Or is he projected to the strong side OLB position, right along side JJ, which I suggested earlier this past week. If this were the case, could he cover the RB and TE responsibilities in the flat routes?
If we were to trade for Mallet, then the decision to draft Clowney, or Mack, would come down to Crennel having a strong vision how the pieces will fit into his defense. At at this point in time, we have no idea what he has in mind. It's nothing but conjecture on our part.